# In the matter of Kirtanlal & Sons vs. Himanshu Harshad Choksi

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-03-04. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-02231. The case pertains to an application filed under Section 99(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 4 Mar 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-02231
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/kirtanlal-sons-vs-himanshu-harshad-choksi-40d169c2

## Summary

### Background

The case pertains to an application filed under Section 99(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Resolution Professional (RP) against the Personal Guarantor, Himanshu Harshad Choksi. The RP was appointed to submit a report on an application filed under Section 95 of the IBC 2016 by the Financial Creditor, Kirtanlal & Sons. The RP's report was submitted via affidavit dated 15.12.2023. The applicant, Kirtanlal & Sons, appeared through counsel, stating that their submitted documents were not considered before the report was sent. The financial creditor had sent an email on 13.12.2023 giving details from which the debt and default were observed. The debt was initially decreed by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai on 15.03.2005. The Corporate Debtor

…

## Facts

Kirtanlal & Sons, the Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 99(1) of the IBC against Himanshu Harshad Choksi, the Personal Guarantor. The application was based on a debt initially decreed by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai on 15.03.2005 for Rs. 28,91,836/-. The Corporate Debtor had previously filed a reference application before the BIFR on 02.01.2006 under SICA. An order staying the decree was passed on 23.01.2007, but this was set aside by the High Court on 26.09.2019, allowing the Financial Creditor to proceed with execution. A Demand Notice was served on 14.07.2022, and the application was filed on 23.09.2022. The Resolution Professional (RP) appointed to submit a report on the application was found to have submitted an inconsistent and

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application filed by the Financial …

**Ratio:** The period of limitation for filing an application under the IBC is determined by the

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal considered the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, which set

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the limitation period involves considering the relevant

…

**Application:** In this case, the Tribunal found that the application was filed within the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Chitra Ha…; Velamur G Venkata…
- **Appellants:** Kirtanlal…
- **Respondents:** Himanshu Harshad…
- **Advocates:** Anushree…; Rohan Lav…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2005-03-15 — Initial Decree by High…**: The Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai issued…
- **2006-01-02 — Reference Application…**: The Corporate Debtor filed a reference application before the BIFR under the provisions…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 — Application by creditor to initiate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-95)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/kirtanlal-sons-vs-himanshu-harshad-choksi-40d169c2